<
d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio.no> wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
>>> combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
>>> IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
>>
>> Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
>> just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
>> ignoring it? Maybe that's not inherent to what an IGNORE means, but it
>> seems pretty key to me.
>
> There's the question of how reductions treats the value. IIUC, IGNORE as
> bitpattern would imply that reductions treat the value as 0, which is a
> question orthogonal to whether the value can possibly be unmasked or not.
>
> Dag Sverre
>
Just because we are trying to be exact here, the reductions would